cti-stix message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Possible solution to conundrum of how to do patterns for Infrastructure and Malware
- From: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 08:25:35 -0300
Sorry I wrote that pattern before I had
coffee.. it makes no sense.
This is what the pattern would be with
my proposal.... you are looking for the hash contained inside a specific
object...
[file:hashes.“SHA-256" = stix-object:malware-12345-aaaaa-bbbbb-ccccc.sample_metadata[*].hashes.“SHA-256"]
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From:
"Jason Keirstead"
<Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
To:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:
05/25/2017 08:22 AM
Subject:
[cti-stix] Possible
solution to conundrum of how to do patterns for Infrastructure and Malware
Sent by:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Yesterday a major discussion at the
face-to-face was around trying to work out the end to end workflow by which
the indicators come out of the malware.
Myself (and it seems several others as well) are concerned that if malware
sandboxes automatically start sharing tons of “malware” objects via TAXII,
or sensors start producing “infrastructure” objects linked to observations,
then software vendors are just going to code their implementations to look
for those things directly… indicators will never “show up” because either
there is no one to make them, and/or people don’t want to do things twice
(they don’t want to make an Infrastructure object with observations *and*
maintain a pattern for those observations and constantly update them both
and keep them in sync as they mature - it is going to be a large headache.
Folks seem to be having this implicit assumption that either (a) humans
will make and maintain all of these indicators from the tool output “just
because”, or (b) vendors will change their tools to output indicators
because someone (?) is asking for the indicators. This to me flies in the
face of the fact that the market is lazy and always seeks the shortest
path to success; if that path is to just write code to directly search
and alert on malware and infrastructure observations, then that is what
is going to happen…. after all, the vast majority of what people share
on threat intel feeds are pointers to malware or infrastructure.
The danger is that indicators become not very useful and we end up with
somewhat crippled STIX implementations everywhere since no one can look
for anything complicated, because they can’t use patterns… we end up
with STIX 1.X.
I have been thinking about this problem last night and am wondering if
a possible solution is to add an operator to allow patterns to somehow
reference STIX objects directly.
IE you would have something like
[stix-object:malware-12345-aaaaa-bbbbb-ccccc.sample_metadata[*].hashes.“SHA-256"
= ‘aec070645fe53ee3b3763059376134f058cc337247c978add178b6ccdfb0019f’]
This pattern would mean “you want to look for the hashes defined in this
specific STIX object“
If we had this, then I think it is an answer to what I think is an obvious
problem. This way the actual definition of the object is what is referred
to in the indicator. It also makes it much easier to create patterns from
malware and infrastructure, and also eliminates the problem of having to
constantly sync patterns with these objects.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]